Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: jbenash7 Date: Nov 29, 2005 6:17am
Forum: etree Subject: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

The reaction of Deadheads to the pulling of the soundboards is not going unnoticed:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/8898045/thegratefuldead?pageid=rs.News&pageregion=double1&rnd=1133301544546&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872

Take note of the last lines:

"An official statement from the Grateful Dead camp is expected in the next few days. In the meantime, longtime band publicist and spokesperson, Dennis McNally, told Rolling Stone that he thinks "David Gans' comments were dead -- you'll pardon the expression -- on.""

This post was modified by jbenash7 on 2005-11-29 14:16:40

This post was modified by jbenash7 on 2005-11-29 14:17:38

This post was modified by jbenash7 on 2005-11-29 14:17:55

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Nov 29, 2005 6:42am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

In response to David Gans' comments. I agree that we deadheads are not neccessarily "entitled " to the music, in spite of Jerry's numerous comments, and many years of allowing access to live music. By the same token, GDP and the rest of the boys are not neccessarily "entitled" to our financial and emotional support, and I, for one, choose not to give it to them.

This post was modified by Purple Gel on 2005-11-29 14:42:50

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:51am
Forum: etree Subject: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

The mainstream press has definitely gotten ahold of this now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/arts/music/30dead.html

For tomorrow's paper. And it says,
"The band recently asked the operators of the popular Live Music Archive (archive.org) to make the concert recordings - a staple of Grateful Dead fandom - available only for listening online, the band's spokesman, Dennis McNally, said yesterday."

All the spokesman parts of the article:

"The band recently asked the operators of the popular Live Music Archive (archive.org) to make the concert recordings - a staple of Grateful Dead fandom - available only for listening online, the band's spokesman, Dennis McNally, said yesterday."....

"The independently operated Live Music Archive evidently posed unwelcome competition.

"'These folks assembled a Deadhead's dream collection and made it available,' Mr. McNally said. 'When we discovered it, we decided to take a wait-and-see approach. Eventually, it was the band's conclusion, after a long discussion with them, to request that they change their policies' and make the live recordings available only as streams."...

"'One-to-one community building, tape trading, is something we've always been about,'" Mr. McNally said. 'The idea of a massive one-stop Web site that does not build community is not what we had in mind. Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values.'

"Most fans, he continued, 'understand they were being granted an extraordinary privilege, and they responded by taking it very seriously' by respecting the band's wishes not to sell their live recordings. 'This is not the same situation,' he added."


So, now we know: The Grateful Dead kicked in a "personal fan interaction" clause. Sort of like DMB, yet so very different.

Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values. Finally, I'm tearing up here. [moderated]

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-11-29 17:51:08

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: OhMyNerves Date: Nov 30, 2005 5:30am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: NY Times-GD "change their policies"

Deadheads Outraged Over Web Crackdown
By JEFF LEEDS
The Grateful Dead, the business, is testing the loyalty of longtime fans of the Grateful Dead, the pioneering jam band, by cracking down on an independently run Web site that made thousands of recordings of its live concerts available for free downloading.

The band recently asked the operators of the popular Live Music Archive (archive.org) to make the concert recordings - a staple of Grateful Dead fandom - available only for listening online, the band's spokesman, Dennis McNally, said yesterday. In the meantime, the files that previously had been freely downloaded were taken down from the site last week.

Dissent has been building rapidly, however, as the band's fans - known as Deadheads - have discovered the recordings are, at least for the time being, not available. Already, fans have started an online petition, at www.petitiononline.com/gdm/petition.html, threatening to boycott the band's recordings and merchandise if the decision is not reversed. In particular, fans have expressed outrage that the shift covers not only the semiofficial "soundboard" recordings made by technicians at the band's performances, but also recordings made by audience members.

To the fans, the move signals a profound philosophical shift for a band that had been famous for encouraging fans to record and trade live-concert tapes. The band even cordoned off a special area at its shows, usually near the sound board, for "tapers" - a practice now followed by many younger jam bands.

But more broadly, it suggests that a touchstone of baby-boomer counterculture - the recording made by and shared, sometimes via mail, among hard-core fans - may be subverted in a digital era when music files can be instantly transmitted worldwide.

The move comes as the group, which disbanded after the 1995 death of its leader and ringmaster, Jerry Garcia, has begun selling downloads of its live concerts through its own official Web site. The band (whose surviving members - the guitarist Bob Weir, the bassist Phil Lesh and the drummers Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann - have since played together under the more compact name the Dead) sells album-length recordings of the shows at prices that can run from about $8 to roughly $16 a copy.

Unlike the digital files sold at popular music services like Apple Computer's iTunes or Real Networks' Rhapsody, the band sells its music as files that can be copied and transferred without restriction.

The independently operated Live Music Archive evidently posed unwelcome competition.

"These folks assembled a Deadhead's dream collection and made it available," Mr. McNally said. "When we discovered it, we decided to take a wait-and-see approach. Eventually, it was the band's conclusion, after a long discussion with them, to request that they change their policies" and make the live recordings available only as streams.

The contretemps makes clear that the band's decades-long support of fan recordings and trading did not anticipate the popularity of music online.

"One-to-one community building, tape trading, is something we've always been about," Mr. McNally said. "The idea of a massive one-stop Web site that does not build community is not what we had in mind. Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values."

Most fans, he continued, "understand they were being granted an extraordinary privilege, and they responded by taking it very seriously" by respecting the band's wishes not to sell their live recordings. "This is not the same situation," he added.

David Gans, who is the host of a syndicated radio program, "The Grateful Dead Hour," said in an interview yesterday that the battle is rooted in the band's "historically lackadaisical attitude toward their intellectual property." He added: "When they were making $50 million a year on the road, there wasn't a lot of pressure to monetize their archives." Now, however, it may be difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. While the move to revise the Live Music Archive may deal a blow to what many fans considered an organized library of material, "the idea that they could stop people from trading these files is absurd," Mr. Gans said, adding: "It's no longer under anyone's control. People have gigabytes of this stuff."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bangtailpoet Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

"Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values."

I think there is a typo here. "values" should read "profits."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cincykid Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:57am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

"Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values."

I'm speechless. For the past year, my energy over the Grateful Dead, and the music they created, has increased 100-fold in discovering the Archives. The energy came from the music, but just as powerful, were the reviews, and countless discussions built around this great Archive. "...not what we had in mind." Did you have in mind that a 24 year old such as myself would have such enthusiasm about a show you did in 1970 when you played it? Sad boys, so sad.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Liamfinnegan Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:20am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

So we were not building a community here? We were not meeting new people and bouncing ideas off of each other? We were not turning each other on to the best of this song or that song, or this segue, or that show?

How is what we were doing here not community building? This also goes out to those bozos who have posted here since last week who say that going back to the "old way" of trading is somehow morally superior- hey, the world has changed, and we live in a world where cyber exchanges is how we communicate. You make the philosophically inept conclusion that because we talk here and by e-mail, that we are all just staying home.

Not true, of course. What a lame excuse McNally gave.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: weatherreportsuite Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:43am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

Thanks again, Diana - I'm new to posting (I guess I'm a "deadhead") - but please everyone - send this article to all the heads you know:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/arts/music/30dead.html

Boycott the greedy bastards that robbed our hearts and souls!!! "Happy Holidays" - great business move you friggin' idiots!!!

Reply to this post
Reply

Poster: 3roin stones Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

I've got to admit that even though I was extremely saddened that our soundboards had been removed, I was still sitting on the fence regardinf the GDP boycott.
But after reading McNally's official statement I'm so enraged that I will boycott everything Dead related.
I wonder exactly who McNally's speaking on behalf of but I've got to assume that if this is an official statement that he speaks for the entire band.Shame on all of you.
Reality sets in-the Grateful Dead died with Jerry Garcia.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Burroughs Date: Nov 29, 2005 4:32pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

It is difficult to know which was more insulting and disheartening: the silence that spoke loudly of the band's obvious insouciance, or the garbled, pathetic, nearly hilarious, ostensible "explanation" of why they demanded the rules be changed. Community? Apparently the band has been taken in by the years of press questioning the intellectual prowess of their fans, as they surely take us for fools. Honestly, the fact that they want to sell the Vault to some McCorporation is their business, but the fact that they feel the need to lie about their motivations, while simultaneously taking a swipe at the LMA, is inexecusable. And to those who think that I, and others like me, have some misplaced sense of entitelment: there is no need to get into lawyerly wrangling. You should have learned long ago that when you give something away, and say "I don't care what you do with it", you have abdicated your right to control its destiny. This goes doubly once you SELL tapers tix. I suppose it should come as no suprise, however, that the band wouldn't respect Jerry's verbally articulated wishes/sentiments, since they wouldn't respect his sworn will. It is a sad, twisted irony that now GDP wants to assert their proprietary rights concerning their nebulous, auditory art after denying those same proprietary rights to Doug Irwin and Jerry in relation to Mr. Irwin's very tangible art.

This post was modified by Burroughs on 2005-11-30 00:32:03

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tgvas Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:58pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

Unless I am mistaken, The Grateful Dead never made a substantial amount of money selling records in the first place, and to my knowledge , only had one best seller.

The majority of their wealth has come from Shows, T-Shirts and Dicks Picks albums to a lessor extent, which as far as I know, died when dick died.

What I see here is pure greed, and an attitude that was displayed in court by Debra, that had nothing to do with Jerry's or the "then" band members wishes.

Funny how $$$$ changes people!

Mountain Girl, where are you when we need your voice?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: GJR Date: Nov 29, 2005 11:08pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

I read the McNally statement just before going to bed last night. I wanted to post, for the first time on this topic, to simply say- blow it out your a** McNally. But I didn't. I went to sleep. The I woke up, went to work, had my coffee and logged back on to LMA, knowing fully that by now, many others must surely feel the same way as I did last night after reading that article. Well, I shouldn't of wasted any time... Blow it out of your a** McNally.

This site has brought together everyone of us who were active in other GD trading venues, but not all of them at the same time. This site has given us the valuable, highly listenable, shows along with the reviews section... which I now realize, are just as important as the shows themselves! We had feedback from those who were there, those like the fellow before this post who worked on public radio and interviewed McNally (maybe he was abducted by aliens?....and, as a side note, I bought my copy of the book from Dead.net..... your welcome Dennis). Heck, I wouldn't even be surprised to find out that Phil or any other band member might be part of this conversation right now! The LMA, with all of its' GD content and active fan interraction, is exactly the type of vehicle that can preserve this band's legacy for an eternity. And that should make everybody happy- both fans and band members.

Listen up Grateful Dead and give back the music to the LMA. Do it for those whom haven't heard it yet and for us fans, who wouldn't mind hearing it just one more time.

Thank you LMA.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Slim075 Date: Nov 30, 2005 2:16am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

BOTTOM LINE
The Grateful Dead renigged on a 1999 adition to the taping policy that THEY put in place in the late 60's because they feel that they can make more money selling the shows

don't talk to us like we are idiots

if LMA doesn't support a community How come there are THOUSANDS of hours of music posted by bands and fans of live music and listened to and discussed all day long.

How come close to 5K people have signed petitions to boycott GDM?. thats pretty organized for a NON Community

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dustyb Date: Nov 29, 2005 1:04pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

If you haven't read the article by now:
"One-to-one community building, tape trading, is something we've always been about," Mr. McNally said. "The idea of a massive one-stop Web site that does not build community is not what we had in mind. Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values."-Dennis McNally

If there is anything that feels more like a community in the world of modern day live music exchange than this website than I have yet to see it. Community certainly doesn't stem from the overpriced downloads over at the Gdstore--which I guess we are supposed to believe (since that seems to be the alternative they favor right now) are better representative of current GD values--i.e. money and Itunes. I am so saddened and disappointed to hear the Dead's official word on this be such blatant BS! It is an insult to this amazing website and all the people who have contributed their time to it--whether uploading, downloading, writing reviews or maintaining the site.
The former methods of recording, trading and distribution of tapes was just a prelude and a buildup to something like the LMA! This website is the culmination of all that work, and the best model I've seen of what a deadhead community could be in the internet age, and how it could grow and flourish into the future. It's taken the efforts of thousands of people and 35-40 years of work to finally put most all of the Dead's music in one place where it is widely accessible and enjoyable, and it's been torn down in a day. For those who never saw the Grateful Dead live, this IS the community--the place to come for undisvovered gems, smart and wacky insights into shows, stories from people who were there, and so on. There has to be a better way. For the sake of the future of the music and so future generations can appreciate the spirit of the band and the deadheads united as one community, I hope there is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bangtailpoet Date: Nov 29, 2005 2:15pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

I must say, I was angry before but now I am outright offended. To slam this website and to say this is not community and that it is inconsistent with GD values (whatever that means) is just nonsense, and an offront to all the people who have put their time and efforts into maintaining this site.

Watching a bootleg copy of "Sunshine Daydream" last night and reflecting on this recent turn of events, it really strikes me how much has been lost...

This post was modified by bangtailpoet on 2005-11-29 22:15:20

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Saint of Circumstance Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

The Internet Archive/Live Music Archive is a COMMUNITY.

Deadheads are a COMMNUNITY.

They belong to and COMMUNE with each other.....inseparable.

I am part of both COMMUNITIES!!!

BRING BACK THE MUSIC!!!

P.S. How come any time i try and sign one of those petitions, or look at the signatures either on IE6 or Firefox, i get a "this page has no content"-type error?

P.P.S. BRING BACK THE MUSIC!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Nov 29, 2005 11:06am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: LMA Community

The Internet Archive/Live Music Archive is a COMMUNITY.

This was the post that made me realize it had gelled into one on its own, not as "some etreers that come over to the site":
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=25519

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: phl7@cornell.edu Date: Nov 29, 2005 11:11am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: LMA Community

If Jerry's ashes weren't scattered out in SF bay, he'd be rollin in his grave over this. I'm flyin my steal-your-face flag upside down for the foreseeable future.

How many more drums/congas/whistles/bells/playable skulls/etc. does Mickey Hart need? How many more hawaiian T-shirts does Kreutzmann want?

I have plenty of SBDs on disc now so contact me to get this started underground (again!). 5-8-77 anyone?

Keep on keeping on,

Pete

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mars245 Date: Dec 17, 2005 6:23pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

well at least they left Barton Hall, CT
up for download ...

Dig it ... get it you haven't gotten it!

--->1977-05-08

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: hoophound Date: Nov 30, 2005 5:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

I was just reading a "celebrity profile" on Dennis McNally. His "industry pet peeve"? "Decisions made for corporate reasons." What a hypocrite.

Dennis can be reached at 415-896-2198; e-mail: Dennis@deadnet.com

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:09am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead: BRAVO to LMA!!!!

To Diana and all the great folks at LMA.
This is another example of the deplorable actions and now statements from the GD money machine!!!
You folks at LMA are the epitome of what the DeadHead community is all about. I am truly sorry that LMA's good name has been sullied this way, especially after your balanced and fair reactions to all the recent posts from pissed off Dead Heads. you have handled all the negativity with class and politeness.
Once again, I wish to thank all of you at LMA for doing such a great job for all fans of live music.

Obviously I can not speak for all of us, but I believe that most of my fellow Heads will join me in saying BRAVO!!! to all involved with this site.
Frank

This post was modified by Purple Gel on 2005-11-29 18:09:54

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HopOttin Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:56am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

"'These folks assembled a Deadhead's dream collection and made it available,' Mr. McNally said. 'When we discovered it, we decided to take a wait-and-see approach. Eventually, it was the band's conclusion, after a long discussion with them, to request that they change their policies' and make the live recordings available only as streams."...

"When we discovered it?" When who discovered it? Who gave the Archive inititial permission to host the Dead? Someone with authority to do so I assume.

"Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values."
F*ck that. I have personally kicked down 100s of cds over the past couple years to a number of Internet deprived folks and have turned numerous casual fans into fullblown Deadheads. I can think of about 20 people off hand that would say we have established a fantastic local Dead renaissance thanks to this site.

This post was modified by HopOttin on 2005-11-29 18:56:26

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Nov 29, 2005 11:03am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

They are flagged "Policy allows archives" here.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mshalfstep Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:13pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

Been sitting on the fence so far trying to see all sides, but McNally just knocked me off...

Come on Dennis. Community is sharing.

I go to the GD store to buy music (and yes I just bought the Fillmore West, Dead Ahead, DP 36 package, t-shirt and all). That's a cold, hard transaction.

I come to LMA each morning with a cup 'o coffee for conversation.

Shame on you and GDM for slamming Diana, LMA, and all of us. Take your marbles and run. The rest of us are gonna sit right here in the sandbox and keep playing.

Now, that John Butler Trio looks interesting. 56% batting average. Wonder what our community is saying about it.....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:37pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

I work in Public Radio (proudly),and over the past 10 years have worn many hats, from producer to editor, and on-air host/interviewer. When I worked in Boston I helped book, promote, and produce an interview with Dennis McNally who had just released his (then) new book about life with Jerry and the Dead.

I was by far the biggest Dead Head at the station and was given free reign to shape the questions for the interviewer, and I worked closely with another producer providing select cuts from Dicks Picks to enhance what McNally had to say about the Dead's legacy and continuing influence on modern-day music. I went waaaaay out of my way to make the interview one of the most comprehensive and highly produced pieces we ever aired. Most everyone else was lukewarm (and that's being kind) about the prospect of interviewing McNally at all, and I had to work hard in meetings to push for the interview to happen.

After we were done I spoke w/McNally about my appreciation for his work and the band's over the years and he seemed grateful for the extra attention given his segment. He also asked me if I had many tapes in my collection and I admitted that I hadn't done much trading over the years because the quality of the tapes was often so poor I didn't bother. He then made my day by promising to send me what he described as high quality CD's of the June 1977 Winterland run.

I just about fell over myself thanking him, and I remember him saying "hey, every DeadHead should have good quality versions of these shows--they're amazing." I offered to pay him for them, at the very least for the postage, and he demurred, saying that tape trading has always been free and it's all about spreading the music. It took some time but the CD's did arrive and I was thrilled to have them.

Now, reading his comments in the Times makes me wonder a) Why did I bother working so hard to make that interview the best it could be?, or b) Was the McNally I met kidnapped by space aliens and replaced with a corporate quality control spokesman from the planet Hypocri-tron?

This is sad beyond belief. I hope I haven't bored everyone with this personal reminiscence, but I do think it speaks volumes.

Thank you Diana and all at the archive. I will continue to peruse this site (Radiatiors, Ray's Music Exchange, Home at Last, Jason Mraz and so many other great bands not compromised by the bottom line) and take part in the COMMUNITY it has fostered. There's good folks here, and still plenty of good music, too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: GFLD1 Date: Nov 30, 2005 2:46am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

These are sad times for Dead fans everywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was either one of Jerrys last wishes or in his will that he wanted the entire Vault to be available to everyone.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ocomik Date: Nov 29, 2005 12:29pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

Original content post here - http://www.themusicneverstopped.net/archives/2005/11/deadheads_outra.html

I hate to play the cynic but I doubt seriously that the reason they asked the Live Music Archive to remove the band's material was because Brewster Kahle's web site did "not build community."

I've already said I respect the right of the band (or any other intellectual property owner) to change their mind regarding the availability of their content BUT have the decency to divulge the real reason behind your motives.

I for one strongly disagree with McNally about the "community" aspect of the Live Music Archive. What Kahle has successfully done is create a site that is the epitomy of the Grateful Dead community allowing people to not only share the music but to interact with other like minded folk through discussions, reviews, etc...

I really think David Gans nailed it on the head when he mentioned that the Dead's old attitudes toward their intellectual property wasn't really threatened until the disruptive technology known as the Internet arrived.

As revenues have dried up from touring, I believe the band has had to look at other revenue streams, one of which is making their vault content available to fans for a fee. I might even speculate based on a conversation that I had with one our guests a while back that perhaps this is part of a bigger deal.

If the band is working with a group like Apple to make the whole vault available via iTunes, then I can see Apple making the request that the Grateful Dead should ask web site providers to remove this content from their site. After all, it's extremely hard to compete against "free". Just ask Netscape when Microsoft was giving their browser away.

The more I think about this angle the more I think I'm going to be proven right. Don't be surprised if we see all of the shows that were originally available via web sites like the Live Music Archive end up being available via some sort of fee based service.

Once again if that's what the band wants to do then they are within their rights to do it. They just shouldn't act surprised when people become upset because they've been led to believe, at least for thirty plus years, that the live performances would always be freely available no matter what the distribution method was as long as no financial incentive was achieved. [Ed]

Michael OConnor, Editor
TheMusicNeverStopped.net

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fishead Date: Nov 29, 2005 11:51am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

it's a real shame they feel that way . i know other bands also agree with that way of thinking . i sure don't think they are right in what they are saying . so they dont like the idea of having almost all of their shows avail to the public at a drop of a dime.in a way i don't blame them but still wish they would change their minds.
now there was no mention of bit-torrent sites like bt.etree.org/etc..
guess they have no problems with them.

sorry this happened..sure hope other bands here don't follow the dead out of here.....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: chun Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:11am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

"the idea of a one-stop web site is not what we want, unles we run it and make mad loot from it, in which case its ok"

Just remove the word values and substitute the word PROFIT...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ole Uncle John Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:55am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

Beat me to the punch Diana, just read it online myself.
You do have to wonder if this is THE official statement.

If it is it sure is a crock of sh**t!

The paid mouthpiece said quote: "The idea of a massive one-stop Web site that does not build community is not what we had in mind. Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values."

So it was their earnest concern for 'community' that apparently led to the decision not the more obvious profit/bottomline quest we niavely assumed. Yah right.

So apparently pimping the shows for $20 a shot, you supply the disks, covers, and artwork, will better build 'community' and better represent Grateful Dead values.

I'd have had more respect for them if they had come right out and said having every show available for free was bad buisness. LAMA, unintentionally of course, provided the best 'community' most of us had since the shows stopped.

Loved your book Dave but you should be ashamed.

PS: I wish IA would reconsider hosting the streaming free advertizing shows for the band, since it is obvious you guys don't represent their values.

This post was modified by Ole Uncle John on 2005-11-29 17:55:42

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HighNRGOne Date: Nov 29, 2005 11:41am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

Diana,

This makes me very sad and really cold now....no more fire inside over Archive's role in this. It is now loud and clear that you all have been used and tossed away as much as all of your donors, by this band's decisions.

When all is said and done you all DO NOT deserve to be walked on this way in such widely-aired and callous public fashion, by the very people who dragged you into this unenviable position.

For them to say that Archive is not a community is just despicable....especially when their alternative is to destroy any community they might have had by uniting it around anger and alienation.

How in the name of all that is good do they think that some cash-machine style, one-way only download site of theirs is a better community builder?

For the record, my publicly-stated frustrations with Archive's submitting to the GD money machine were more than anything from the view that you all do a SUPERB public service and should not knuckle under to them so easily. At heart I never believed you all were the liable parties here and my fiery posts were only meant to cajole you to think twice and consider who you really should have in mind in making final decisions on this.

My 'legal brief' type posts were meant to show you that you have VERY strong legal and equitable grounds to defy their dictum. I stand ready to donate my firm's services and to gather a pro bono legal team to defend you, if you ever decide to honor the work of your donors over the corporate orders of the faceless 'Grateful Dead'.

I am confident that no state or federal judicial venue would be sympathetic to claims the Dead might bring to prevent you from your non-profit work. You have a gold-plated record of serving the public worldwide that would take you quite far against those who have brought nothing but greed and intellectual dishonesty to you and us all.

The basic theory that makes you 100% righteous in continuing full public access to the GD collection is called promissory estoppel....you and others have acted on and expended very precious resources in valid reliance upon the Dead's 'policy'. If you violated the policy, sure they could do what they are doing....it is why they threw you all under the bus. But because what they are really doing is simply changing the bargain in their favor, after so many people relied on it and held up their end, they would be judicially 'estopped' as to any legal rights or claims over your site's activities.

Just know that McNally's trash talk is obviously laying the groundwork for a legal posture based on this very strong, latent defense you have. They are trying to say you didn't hold up your end by not 'building community' so they cannot be estopped from changing the bargain after the fact. They are trying to say that you have fallen short, not that their policy has changed.....

I suspect one of their lawyers has carefully read some of my posts and they are anticipating exactly the defense for you that I roughly laid out. But guess what? Their saying you aren't a community is such a thin, laughable assertion that if this is the best they can come up with they better be prepared to lose big time, should you all reconsider and they want to go to the mat over it.

Food for thought.....and I have given a lot of thought to all of this, from a legal standpoint. (I hate to do this, but I knew it would be the only language this band's greedlings will understand.....and apparently they caught on).

The Greedful Dead have truly shown that, for them, respect is definitely NOT a two-way street.

Ughhhh...this just gets worse and worse.

God Bless.

This post was modified by HighNRGOne on 2005-11-29 19:41:41

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: pjb71 Date: Nov 29, 2005 11:56am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

Mr. High,
i've been watching your repartee over the last week or so.
while i prefer the vagaries of free association to the specifics of legal precedent,i hope you give 'em hell!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bangtailpoet Date: Nov 29, 2005 6:23am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

Of course McNally is going to side with the powers that be. He's getting paid to write the liner notes for the official releases. Anybody else think his essay that came with the Fillmore '69 set was lame?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jaydubz88 Date: Nov 29, 2005 8:31am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

Not that my 2 cents matter, but here goes. In my opinion what this really boils down to is one thing and one thing only: the fans. What kept this band rolling along for 30 years was not a fluke, but a marriage. A contract, that stated we'll be there to support you when the notes are off when the words are wrong when the timings bad when the coma hit when the liver failed when the keyboardist died. One thing you could count on was that your next venue would be sold out. We bought the shirts and the ties and met you in the next town to do it all over again. All we asked was for 1 thing: keep that music flowing. So like the corner drug dealer you gave me the good stuff...got me addicted to it and then jacked up the price. And now my veins are throbbing. There's other music out there and if I look hard enough Ill find the next best thing..but I don't want to..you broke my heart you bunch of Fredo's. But like everything else when you're all gone, the sun will still come up and the only thing that will keep you alive are the fans.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: weatherreportsuite Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:36am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

Dude - you're right on - we are SO addicted; they just cut us dry, stopped the supply. we will survive!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mudcatbluez Date: Nov 29, 2005 11:12am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

Apparently the music does stop...

I'm not much for speaking up, but I've been in love with LMA for a year now--pretty much from the point discovered it. Of course, the inclusion of the Dead was a stroke of amazing luck, I thought. It permitted me to reconnect & rediscover a community I'd fallen out of touch with for reasons that remain unimportant. I'd hit the site damn near daily, often as not just to read the postings.

A funny thing happened this month. I got married. During that final hectic few days, a pair of Dead shows were all that got played because I didn't have the "time" to reload discs. The shows are inextricibly linked--and happily so--to my wedding. Marsalis backing up the Dead, New Year's '90. --Guess I'll be (not) waiting a while for its commerical release.

I've been a Deadhead since the 1980 shows. I've never felt as if they'd let me down. Damned if I don't feel slapped in the face.

I'm unsure as to what sort of "community" the powers-that-be are objecting to. Directly as a result of LMA, I've turned more than a dozen "virgins" onto Jerry & the boys. I rebuilt a collection that had been completely wiped-out several years back--and relied very heavily on the guidance of the Deadheads I found there. The site has helped connect Deadheads right here in my own home town...go figure.

Are we not fostering community? Who do they think built this archive in the first place?

As for LMA being "unfair competition," I'm sort of hoping we were at the moment...but the reality is that I've still bought plenty of "official" Dead discs (etc.)long after I discovered LMA. I'm done with that now. After recent events, they've gotten their last dime from me. As far as I'm concerned, a boycott implies an "end time" once certain expectations transpire. I fully support the boycott being discussed here...but "they've" gotten the last of my $--in perpetuity.

I hope Dennis & Co. find the sort of "community" they're talking about. As for me, I know the Heads I truck with.

Before I sign off, I've got to thank Diana, LMA, and all the contributors. You've impacted my life in more ways than you know. I have relied on you, followed your guidances, and found some wondrous places because of your kindness...and your community.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dire--wolf Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:15am
Forum: etree Subject: John Barlow chimes inRe: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

see the links.

http://www.themusicneverstopped.net/
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/29/barlow_on_death_of_g.html

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Nov 29, 2005 2:54pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: John Barlow chimes inRe: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead . WAY TO GO JOHN!!!!

Finally some common sense from someone in the inner circle. It's interesting that he blames the drummers, though it is hard to believe that this action could not have been taken without at least the tacit approval of Bob and Phil as well. How refreshing to know that at least one person is speaking out against this action.

WAY TO GO JOHN!!

Now I hope the rest of the guys have the guts to let us know where they stand on this issue. I have the feeling, though, that unless they are against it, they will not have the courage to speak their minds.

This post was modified by Purple Gel on 2005-11-29 22:54:34

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dire--wolf Date: Nov 29, 2005 12:07pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: John Barlow chimes inRe: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead . WAY TO GO JOHN!!!!

but...phil still has downloads available...? whatever...there are other ways to get their great music, it is just a tad more difficult now...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tgvas Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:50pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: John Barlow chimes inRe: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead . WAY TO GO JOHN!!!!

As I have been saying, Debra has been behind this all along, as she was the one to close down Jerry's music when he passed.

Debra is to the Dead, as Yoko was to the Beatles!
I never liked her from the first day I sat across from her at a dinner some 12 years ago, and will never go back on that.

I have attended over 400 shows just of the GD since 69, another 150 or so of other band members and the Dead.

Until this is straightened out and Debra stops this, and the Band members take her out with a buy off, I will never attend another show again.

I know some on here made fun of me and complained that I was being too harsh, but apparently a growing majority of Dead-Heads are seeing it the same way!

Thanks John and Dead Heads! (and once again, Thanks LMA, you guys are the greatest)!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SPKirk Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: John Barlow chimes inRe: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

"the drummers had inoperable bricks in their head about it"

This would sure explain alot about the current state of affairs. They don't tour. They don't record. They don't make money. They go after what seems like an obvious drain on possible easy income.

"NEED THAT CASH TO FEED THAT JONES"

Thanks LMA for all you have done and all you will do.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cousinkix1953 Date: Nov 29, 2005 12:59pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: John Barlow chimes inRe: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

Funny that Mickey gets credit for writing "Fire on the Mountain"; and his original 1972 rap version circulates openly thanks to David Gans. Micky and Billy are responsible for a lot of drums and space related tracks.
Phil has written a few things over the decades. Most of the Grateful Dead originals were written by Robert Hunter or John Perry Barlow.

Hunter has offered free MP-3 downloads, of his older commercial releases no longer in print. Is your copy of Jack-O-Roses worn out? See Hunter about a new one. He also has a link for FTP trades right there to use. What does the poet think about this matter?

Barlow dares to tell us just what the Hell is going on. He points the finger right at the greedy people. So indeed, two of the bigger copyright holders haven't sold out!

Both RatDog and Phil & Phriends sound boards still exist on the archive and the official dead.net homepage. Why?, if they're responsible for the new policy? It's gettiong a bit clearer now, and we'll no for sure who is the blame for this mess.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Nov 29, 2005 3:14pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: John Barlow chimes inRe: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

Lets face it, Phil and Ratdog shows are there because there really is no appreciable marketable value there.If there were, they would probably be pulled too, and they would be negotiating to sell them to Apple, WB, or anyone else who was willing to pony up the $$.

This post was modified by Purple Gel on 2005-11-29 23:14:48

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: phl7@cornell.edu Date: Nov 29, 2005 7:40am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Rolling Stone article- Grateful Dead

As I see it there has always been a rift in the Dead community. Folks like Gans, Mcnally, Blair Jackson, etc. receive direct benefits from GDM (occasional access to the vault, band, etc.) and are part of the grateful dead oligarchy that his been around since the early days. They have radio shows, book deals, and access to magazine editors to relay their points of view.

On the other hand, we, the folks who just love the music don't have these sorts of perks. We wake up every morning and think about how we're going to make it through yet another day in this upside-down world.

Fortunately, this awesome website comes along and gives the average fan a piece of the holy pie.

I feel bad for the GDs financial troubles, I really do, but just an FYI...GM laid off 30,000 employees (including people who have worked for that organization longer than 1965). Just like any other business, the Grateful Dead organization will not last forever, but the Grateful Dead's music will. In the end, its just a shame that we got to see and hear from the individuals who lost sight of the whole listening experience is all about...

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)